"Hereafter" or "hereinafter"?
Jim Moser
My profession requires frequent use of acronyms--please, no
anti-acronym comments. So I generally introduce the full name, then
follow that by something like, "hereinafter referred to as XYZ."
A recent use drew a comment that it should be "hereafter." Considered
the comment and concluded "hereinafter" should be preferred, but I may
be getting too fussy.
I reason that including the "in" denotes that it is only within the
present text that the "hereafter" will apply. Omitting the "in"
presumes that I defined XYZ to apply in my text as well as any other
text, a silly thing to say.
Bonnie Granat
Jim Moser wrote in message <386ed167...@news.wwa.com>...
I agree and so does m-w. "Hereafter" means something entirely
different. Show your critics the dictionary definitions.
Bonnie Granat
Schainbaum, Robert
>
> My profession requires frequent use of acronyms--please, no
> anti-acronym comments. So I generally introduce the full name, then
> follow that by something like, "hereinafter referred to as XYZ."
>
> A recent use drew a comment that it should be "hereafter." Considered
> the comment and concluded "hereinafter" should be preferred, but I may
> be getting too fussy.
>
> I reason that including the "in" denotes that it is only within the
> present text that the "hereafter" will apply. Omitting the "in"
> presumes that I defined XYZ to apply in my text as well as any other
> text, a silly thing to say.
>
>
These are all words of art, right? Usage freaks can't reply
opine about such matters, Though your argument persuades me,
I'm not qualified to judge. We've been expertized out of
the picture. It's whatever your colleagues and the guiding
professional association deem to be the appropriate
language. No?
I would check other boilerplate. Must be tons of it out
there.
/r
Charles Riggs
>
>My profession requires frequent use of acronyms--please, no
>anti-acronym comments. So I generally introduce the full name, then
>follow that by something like, "hereinafter referred to as XYZ."
I agree that hereinafter is a better word to use in that context than
hereafter, but both sound of unnecessary legalese and I'd simply say
"Germany has been a member of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, for a number of years". After writing that, NATO can be
referred to any number of times and the reader will know what it
stands for.
Charles Riggs
James Follett
ri...@RemoveThiseircom.net "Charles Riggs" writes:
>I agree that hereinafter is a better word to use in that context than
>hereafter, but both sound of unnecessary legalese and I'd simply say
>"Germany has been a member of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty
>Organization, for a number of years". After writing that, NATO can be
>referred to any number of times and the reader will know what it
>stands for.
The British journal "New Scientist" has a simple yet sensible house style
rule to deal with this and that is to spell out the entire phrase the
first time it appears in an article with the temporary abbreviation
that will be used following immediately in brackets.
"...mould manufactured from synthetic resin-bonded fabric
(SRBF) because such material permits extrusion of ductile
metals without scoring. Other uses of SRBF..."
I doubt if "NATO" would require explanation, but applying the above
rule to Charles' example would result in:
"Germany has been a member of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) for a number of years... The most recent
country to join NATO is..."
--
James Follett -- novelist http://www.davew.demon.co.uk
Richard Fontana
>On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 04:29:12 GMT, jmo...@wwa.com (Jim Moser) wrote:
>
>>
>>My profession requires frequent use of acronyms--please, no
>>anti-acronym comments. So I generally introduce the full name, then
>>follow that by something like, "hereinafter referred to as XYZ."
>
>hereafter, but both sound of unnecessary legalese and I'd simply say
>"Germany has been a member of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty
>Organization, for a number of years". After writing that, NATO can be
>referred to any number of times and the reader will know what it
>stands for.
Or (more conventionally): "Germany has been a member
of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for a number of
years."
Richard
Charles Riggs
Follett) wrote:
>I doubt if "NATO" would require explanation, but applying the above
>rule to Charles' example would result in:
>
> "Germany has been a member of the North Atlantic Treaty
> Organization (NATO) for a number of years... The most recent
> country to join NATO is..."
Though I like my method better and have seen it used any number of
times, yours works too. Either avoids that awful "hereinafter" and
"hereafter" stuff anyway.
Charles Riggs
emkf...@gmail.com
Yes "hereinafter" means within the document but as part of a legal text this is used in the introduction which is to be read before tbe rest of the document, that is if the reader knows what he is doing therefore every other occurrence will take place in the "future," hence "hereafter" is competely fine.
Some guys say: "well that also includes the time after reading the document!" Who cares this whole introduction is limited to this text so is every word... or use may be referred to hereafter. I can't see what all the fuss is about.
Harrison Hill
a long line of thinking, whatsoever it decides.
RHDraney
Peter Young
Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Au)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
to you, is vitally important in the drafting of a legal agreement. Using
'hereafter' could be sufficient grounds for voiding the document altogether
whatever your opinion may be.
Horace LaBadie
> On 26 Sep 2018 RHDraney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On 9/26/2018 10:23 AM, Harrison Hill wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 26 September 2018 16:31:32 UTC+1, emkf...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> I can't get my head around how they differ "completely!"
> >>>
> >>> Yes "hereinafter" means within the document but as part of a legal text
> >>> this is used in the introduction which is to be read before tbe rest of
> >>> the document, that is if the reader knows what he is doing therefore every
> >>> other occurrence will take place in the "future," hence "hereafter" is
> >>> competely fine.
> >>>
> >>> Some guys say: "well that also includes the time after reading the
> >>> document!" Who cares this whole introduction is limited to this text so is
> >>> every word... or use may be referred to hereafter. I can't see what all
> >>> the fuss is about.
> >>
> >> Wheresoever and henceforth this thread is leading, it involves
> >> a long line of thinking, whatsoever it decides.
>
> > Notwithstanding the Google-groupie who nonetheless posted it....r
>
> Tom Jones used to rip his trousers. Notwithstanding.
>
> Peter.